GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 21 Jan 2020, 22:14

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop an

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 19 Jul 2014
Posts: 27
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Accounting
GPA: 3.12
After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop an  [#permalink]

Show Tags

11 Oct 2014, 05:27
6
3
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

81% (01:29) correct 19% (01:48) wrong based on 438 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop and ice cream sandwich, we have determined that either Aingeru or Iskandar is responsible for the theft, as they were the only two people to have access to the fridge between Jou-Mei’s deposit of the desserts and their unauthorized removal. A pudding pop was found in Aingeru’s cubicle, leading us to suspect him of the theft, but after a witness came forward to accuse Iskandar, Iskandar has admitted to taking the ice cream sandwich. As a result, we must apologize to Aingeru for wrongly accusing him of the theft of the pudding pop.

Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?

(A) Aingeru will accept the apology.

(B) Iskandar has a history of unauthorized food removal.

(C) Jou-Mei planned to eat both the desserts in question

(D) Aingeru actually consumed a fruit popsicle he had brought from home.

(E) Whoever took the pudding pop also took the ice cream sandwich.
Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2018
Posts: 158
Location: Viet Nam
After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop an  [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Apr 2019, 02:59
1
VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Keep a close eye on the details in this Assumption question. The conclusion says that Aingeru shouldn’t be accused of the theft of the pudding pop because Iskandar stole the ice cream sandwich, but what do those two things have to do with each other? Nothing, necessarily: Iskandar could’ve stolen the ice cream sandwich while Aingeru stole the pudding pop. So for Aingeru to be exonerated, we need Iskandar to have stolen both items, but none of our premises say anything to that effect. That means we must need a premise to supply that evidence, and (E) is the best option.
_________________
"It Always Seems Impossible Until It Is Done"
Intern
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Posts: 11
Re: After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop an  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Dec 2017, 06:22
How option E is correct. I think assumption should be Whoever took the Ice Cream Sandwitch also took the Pudding Pop.
Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2013
Posts: 60
Re: After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop an  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Dec 2017, 16:19
ankittiss wrote:
After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop and ice cream sandwich, we have determined that either Aingeru or Iskandar is responsible for the theft, as they were the only two people to have access to the fridge between Jou-Mei’s deposit of the desserts and their unauthorized removal. A pudding pop was found in Aingeru’s cubicle, leading us to suspect him of the theft, but after a witness came forward to accuse Iskandar, Iskandar has admitted to taking the ice cream sandwich. As a result, we must apologize to Aingeru for wrongly accusing him of the theft of the pudding pop.

Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?

(A) Aingeru will accept the apology.
(B) Iskandar has a history of unauthorized food removal.
(C) Jou-Mei planned to eat both the desserts in question
(D) Aingeru actually consumed a fruit popsicle he had brought from home.
(E) Whoever took the pudding pop also took the ice cream sandwich.

Hi ankittiss

Option E should be other way round.. could you please check this option once again ?

What's the source of this question please ?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1364
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 7: 710 Q47 V41
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop an  [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Sep 2019, 00:09
This question is broken. The assumption should be "whoever took the ice-cream sandwich took the pudding pop" not the other way around.
VeritasPrepBrian pls respond

The argument is that since Iskandar admitted to taking the ice cream, they must apologize to Aingeru.
This should be based on the fact that whoever took the ice-cream sandwhich also took the pudding pop; thus, Aingeru is exonerated.

Based on the way E is written, the conclusion should be that "Aingeru" should be the accused
_________________
Here's how I went from 430 to 710, and how you can do it yourself:
After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop an   [#permalink] 14 Sep 2019, 00:09
Display posts from previous: Sort by

After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop an

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne